GUILTY UK - Logan Mwangi, 5, found dead in Wales River, Bridgend, 31 July 2021 *arrests, inc. minor* #5

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
VioletLilac said:
I know the jury aren't allowed to Google the case so they aren't influenced, but how would anyone know if they did this?
Click to expand...
I've always wondered the same thing. Can the prosecution or defense seize jurors cell phones or get warrants for their phone logs if they think they broke the rules? I WOULDN'T THINK SO AND HOPE NOT...but who knows?
 
Once someone is charged the press are not allowed to publish any information which could prejudice a trial. So a juror googling should not be able to find anything that they do not hear in the trial unless they contact people with inside knowledge of the defendant.
 
ADMIN NOTE:

There are no Verified mental health experts in this discussion and attempts at diagnosing such issues is not allowed. We run across this in many discussions where members speculate or guess regarding ADHD, bipolar, borderline personality, psychopathy, narcissism, autism, Aspergers, etc etc.

Unless someone can link to MSM where it is stipulated that the accused had ADHD or any other specific mental health / personality disorder, it is off topic so please stop discussing it.
 
Dotta said:
But they decide the verdict.
If they cannot be trusted, then the system is doomed.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the voting record of the UK General public...

I imagine jurors would slip up if they've been doing their own research at some point and it would get reported. It's something I do wonder about though. 20 years ago you'd struggle to know anyone's past convictions but now everything is seconds away on the Internet.
 
Doughy said:
Have you seen the voting record of the UK General public...

I imagine jurors would slip up if they've been doing their own research at some point and it would get reported. It's something I do wonder about though. 20 years ago you'd struggle to know anyone's past convictions but now everything is seconds away on the Internet.
Click to expand...

I think a juror who is stupid enough to disobey a judge, is also stupid enough to say "But I read on the internet that..." in the jury room.

Skigh said:
Once someone is charged the press are not allowed to publish any information which could prejudice a trial. So a juror googling should not be able to find anything that they do not hear in the trial unless they contact people with inside knowledge of the defendant.
Click to expand...

It would only take minutes to find a few forums (like this) and Facebook groups where all kinds of gossip is discussed as fact.
 
neteditor said:
Yes of course they could, it's a criminal offence!

Here's one case: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/jury-foreman-sentenced-over-internet-research/5111157.article
Click to expand...
I understand that---but I was talking about a situation where they just wondered if someone might have googled.

To get a warrant to seize a phone one needs probable cause. So I was saying they would need a valid reason to take someones phone or computer, othe3r than just them 'wondering' if a juror had cheated.
 
katydid23 said:
I understand that---but I was talking about a situation where they just wondered if someone might have googled.

To get a warrant to seize a phone one needs probable cause. So I was saying they would need a valid reason to take someones phone or computer, othe3r than just them 'wondering' if a juror had cheated.
Click to expand...

Why would they wonder, though, if they didn't have reason to? Either something is suspected or it isn't.
 
neteditor said:
Why would they wonder, though, if they didn't have reason to? Either something is suspected or it isn't.
Click to expand...

One solid reason would be if the juror said something, let it slip out in conversation.

There have been jurors 'let go' because other jurors or court employees went to the judge to say they thought the juror had spoken about something in the news, etc.

Would that be enough for LE to come and seize one's laptop and cell?
 
katydid23 said:
One solid reason would be if the juror said something, let it slip out in conversation.

There have been jurors 'let go' because other jurors or court employees went to the judge to say they thought the juror had spoken about something in the news, etc.

Would that be enough for LE to come and seize one's laptop and cell?
Click to expand...

Yes it would. If the juror said something that put them under suspicion, even in jest for example, the police would have power to investigate a criminal offence including seizure and examination of evidence.
 
But why would anybody jeopardize the justice for the victim?
If I were a Juror, I would be offended/humiliated if somebody even thinks I could break the law.

The best deterrent, in my opinion, woud be a financial punishment, eg: paying the cost of the next trial.
 
Dotta said:
But why would anybody jeopardize the justice for the victim?
If I were a Juror, I would be offended/humiliated if somebody even thinks I could break the law.

The best deterrent, in my opinion, woud be a financial punishment, eg: paying the cost of the next trial.
Click to expand...

These cases are rare and they always make headline news (in the UK anyway). That would deter me, the whole country knowing I was that sort of person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 166 more.
Total: 648 (members: 167, guests: 481)

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
481
Total visitors
648
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,324
Messages
18,237,727
Members
234,342
Latest member
wendysuzette
Back
Top